My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CORRESPONDENCE - 75E (GENERAL COMMENTS)
Clerk
>
Agenda Packets / Staff Reports
>
City Council (2004 - Present)
>
2019
>
02/05/2019
>
CORRESPONDENCE - 75E (GENERAL COMMENTS)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2019 12:38:42 PM
Creation date
2/19/2019 11:32:06 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Clerk
Item #
75E
Date
2/19/2019
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
207
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Page 15; [1] Commented [DHS8j Dale Helvig 1/7/7 9 3:0'4:00 PM <br />Park Santiago is a Historical resource and it should be treated as such. <br />Under CELLA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a), the term "historical resources" includes the following: <br />1) A resource listed in, or determined to be eligible by the State Historical Resources Commission, for listing in <br />the California Register of Historical Resources (Public Resources Code, Section 5024.1). <br />2) A resource included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in Section 5020.1(k) of the Public <br />Resources Code or identified as significant in a historical resource survey meeting the requirements of Section <br />5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code, will be presumed to be historically or culturally significant. Public <br />agencies must treat any such resource as significant unless the preponderance of evidence demonstrates that it <br />is not historically or culturally significant. <br />The EIR response to this is: <br />"This policy [Urban Design Element Policy 2.4 j is not relevant to the proposed project. As described in Section <br />4.4, Cultural/Historic Resources, Park Santiago is not identified by the General Plan or other City designation as a <br />historic district." <br />However, the General Plan Urban Design Element [page 11] identifies Park Santiago and Riverview West as <br />examples of similar design districts. <br />The General Plan Housing Element [page 56] goes on to talk about Historic Neighborhood Preservation. It states <br />"Santa Ana has residential, commercial, and industrial areas that have cultural or historic significance to the <br />community. Residential neighborhoods include, but are not limited to, French Park, Floral Park, Wilshire Square, <br />Eastside, Washington Square, and Heninger Park residential neighborhoods. The City is also known for its historic <br />Mexican barrios, including the Logan, Lacy, Delhi, and Santa Anita neighborhoods, which date to the late 1880s. <br />Several of these are recognized as historical districts, while others are not. In addition to preservation strategies for <br />individual structures, the City could explore strategies to identify and preserve neighborhoods or elements <br />thereof that are locally considered worthy of preservation efforts, but not necessarily individually eligible for a <br />formal state at, national historic designation." <br />Page IS: [2) Commented [DH61 j Dale Helvig 1/7/20'19 3.54:00 PM <br />An example from the Traffic Analysis in regards of the access at the 22 Freeway: <br />"With the addition of project traffic, the intersection would continue to operate at an unsatisfactory LOS E in the a.m. peak <br />hour and LOS F in the p.m. peak hour. Therefore, and the proposed project would not result in exceedance of the Caltrans <br />criteria, and no impacts at other intersections would occur. Thus, impacts to intersections in the existing plus project with <br />Option A would be less than significant. <br />It's bad, it will stay bad, so it's OK. Amazingl <br />EIR response: "Because the project would result in limited peak hour trips, it would not result in a change to the existing MOE <br />[Measure of Effectiveness]". <br />Page 19: [3] Commented[DH74] Dale Helvig 1/8/201911k AM <br />What is missing is the Main Place Transformation Project. The City has restricted the scope of the r2525 EIR to <br />development applications that were submitted, approved and/or under construction at or prior to the release of <br />the NOP. CEQA 15130. DISCUSSION OF CUMULATIVE IMPACTS requires either a list of past, present, and <br />probable future projects producing related or cumulative impacts, including, if necessary, those projects outside <br />the control of the agency, or A summary of projections contained in an adopted local, regional or statewide <br />plan, or related planning document, that describes or evaluates conditions contributing to the cumulative effect. <br />The Main Place EIR was approved in the 1990's and is a known project. The fact that the new owner submitted <br />a plan in May 2018 is irrelevant. The Main Place EIR did not evaluate the 2525 N. Main Residential <br />Development. And the 2525 N. Main Residential Development EIR did not evaluate the Main Place. How is this <br />looking at cumulative effects? <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.